2
$\begingroup$

Prove that a left semi-simple ring $R$ is both left noetherian and left-artinian.

I am following the proof given in pg 27,A first course in non-commutative rings (T.Y.Lam). Its strategy is to show that R has a finite composition series from which the result will follow.

It starts out by observing :-

$R=\bigoplus_{i \in I} I_{i}$ where each $I_{i}$ is simple and hence a minimal left ideal in $R$. Then it says that $1$ belongs to $R$,hence it is easily seen to be FINITE direct sum. I am not able to figure out this easy part.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ An infinite direct sum of nonzero modules is never finitely generated. $\endgroup$ – egreg Apr 17 '15 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ @egreg ,i am sorry i didn't get it ,how is this statement relevant? $\endgroup$ – Kayoken Apr 17 '15 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ An infinite direct sum of (nonzero) $R$-modules is not finitely generated, and $R_R$ is finitely generated. It only takes an application of modus tollens to conclude that $R$ is not an infinite direct sum of nonzero modules. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Apr 17 '15 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't it be p. 29? $\endgroup$ – AgentSmith Apr 26 '18 at 20:55
3
$\begingroup$

An infinite direct sum of nonzero modules is never finitely generated. Since $R$, as a left module over itself, is finitely generated, the result follows.

However, in this case it's even easier: you can write $1=\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}x_\lambda$, with $x_\lambda\in I_\lambda$ (I changed slightly the notation, with $\Lambda$ as index set) and all but a finite number of $x_\lambda$ different from $0$. Then, for $r\in R$, $$ r=r1=\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}rx_\lambda $$ which shows that $r\in\bigoplus_{\lambda\in\Lambda_0}I_\lambda$, where $\Lambda_0=\{\lambda\in\Lambda:x_\lambda\ne0\}$.

Thus $\bigoplus_{\lambda\in\Lambda}I_\lambda\subseteq\bigoplus_{\lambda\in\Lambda_0}I_\lambda$ and we are done.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ i still don't get,if i am understanding correctly, you are proceeding via contradiction,and the last statement is infact a contradiction to the fact that there can't be proper containment,leaving the case when they are equal.what if they are equal.? $\endgroup$ – Kayoken Apr 17 '15 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Prayagdeep No, this is a direct proof, and there is no proof by contradiction here. By showing the last line, egreg has established that the two direct sums are equal, and it follows that $\Lambda=\Lambda_0$. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Apr 17 '15 at 15:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.